SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the J&K Government to explain why it has failed to respond to a September 2025 communication from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and why separate Integrated Management Plans (IMPs) for three wetland reserves have not been resubmitted in accordance with the National Plan of Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystem (NPCA) guidelines. The court has also sought an explanation for why other Ramsar Sites in the Union Territory were ignored while the IMPs were being processed and submitted.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani passed the directions on August 17, 2026, while hearing PIL No. 345/2006, Kashmir Environmental Protection vs State of J&K, clubbed with PIL No. 11/2017.
The court’s direction follows an affidavit filed by respondent No. 6 on behalf of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in compliance with its earlier order of July 7, 2026.
According to the affidavit, the Ministry had received a communication from the Government of J&K dated August 25, 2025, concerning Integrated Management Plans prepared under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, National Plan of Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystem, for the period 2025–26 to 2029–30.
The proposals sought consideration and administrative approval for three Wetland Reserves. However, the Ministry found that the proposals were not in conformity with the NPCA scheme.
Consequently, the Ministry addressed a communication to the Government of J&K on September 10, 2025, requiring it to submit a separate Integrated Management Plan for each wetland in accordance with the NPCA Guidelines, 2024.
The High Court was told that the J&K Government has not responded to that communication so far.
The Ministry further informed the court that the NPCA scheme was originally valid only until March 31, 2026, but had subsequently received an interim extension until September 30, 2026. The proposal for continuation of the scheme for the next financial cycle, 2026–31, is currently under consideration by the competent authority.
In view of the Ministry’s affidavit, the bench held that a response from the J&K Government was necessary.
“The Response shall be submitted on an affidavit indicating clearly the reasons as to why the communication dated 10.09.2025 has not been responded so far and as to why the separate IMPs for each of the three wetland reserves have not been re-submitted to the Ministry,” the court directed.
The court went further and sought an explanation regarding the treatment of the Union Territory’s other Ramsar Sites.
“The affidavit shall also explain as to why the other Ramsar Sites in the UT of J&K have been ignored while processing/submitting the IMPs to the Ministry concerned,” the order states.
Three Weeks to File Affidavit
Ms Maha Majeed, assisting counsel for the J&K Government, sought time to file the requisite affidavit. The court granted her three weeks.
The matter has now been listed for September 21, 2026, along with PIL No. 11/2017.
The proceedings arose in the long-running public interest litigation Kashmir Environmental Protection through Nadeem Qadri, Advocate vs State of J&K. Mr Nadeem Qadri is appearing as counsel for the petitioner and as amicus in the proceedings.
The respondents were represented by Mr T.M. Shamsi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms Rehana, Advocate, while Ms Maha Majeed appeared as assisting counsel in place of Mr Mohsin Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General.
The bench also directed the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, to release Rs 25,000 in favour of Mr Nadeem Qadri, learned amicus and counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The order was signed by Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani and Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar.
The court’s latest direction therefore puts the J&K Government under a specific obligation to account for the delay in responding to the Centre, explain why the three IMPs were not revised and resubmitted under the 2024 NPCA guidelines, and clarify why the other Ramsar Sites were not included in the process.
